A Critic’s Opinion Won’t Always Match the Public’s

Doesn’t Stephen Simon (“After the Death of Gene Siskel, a Requiem for Film Criticism,” March 1) realize that film criticism, by its very nature, cannot be “objective”? A critic’s opinion may be based on knowledge of and love for the medium; it may biased by a personal or political agenda. Above all, however, it is based on taste.

Aren’t Simon’s reactions to movies subjective, aren’t they based on his personal taste? Do his reactions hold a perfect mirror up to those of the general public? How is such a thing even possible?

What a good critic does is express a coherent sensibility, grounded in knowledge of and love for his or her subject. Rubber-stamping the opinions of audiences who helped push “Armageddon” to the $200-million mark would be a pointless exercise. And it’s not, I think, one in which Gene Siskel was given to indulge.

JOHN CALHOUN

New York

*

If Simon believes critics and their employers must appeal to the lowest common denominator, perhaps he needs to re-watch “Amadeus.” That is, unless he can claim a preference for the music of Salieri over Mozart’s--as the ticket-buying public did in their day.

Regardless, these comments by Simon are surely an insult, not a tribute, to the challenges Siskel tried to impart to his devoted audience. Certainly Siskel’s most important legacy will be how greatly he expanded serious public discourse about film at the exact time that movie budgets ballooned exponentially and filmmakers, more than ever, began to lose creative control of their projects to studio marketing departments.

ARTHUR WILNER

Los Angeles

*

How incredibly arrogant of filmmaker Stephen Simon to use Gene Siskel’s death as an excuse to rant against “elitist” (read: print) film critics.

Gene certainly connected with the public because of his superb interplay with Roger Ebert and his concise, witty reviews. But he had very precise notions of what makes a good movie, and he would never have lowered his standards to accommodate sloppy producers who want their dumb, story-less, formulaic deal-pictures excused because they’re not, after all, making “art” movies!

Finally, if trashing Gene’s memory weren’t offensive enough, Simon has to trot out the lame shibboleth that if critics hate a popular product, there’s something wrong with the critics.

Baloney. Barnum was right, period.

BONNIE SLOANE

Los Angeles